MLB.com: Just as Bad as ESPN.com

This is the lead article on MLB.com. It's awful! Someone named "Jason Beck" wrote it. He sucks at writing; he sucks at choosing non-sensationalist topics; he sucks at respecting decent baseball teams.

CLEVELAND -- The wounds haven't even been measured from what the Indians did to the Evil Empire. Now they have a chance to overthrow Red Sox Nation.

Hold on, Jason. This is your first sentence. You don't want to screw it up. Wait - "The wounds haven't even been measured"? What the hell? Who measures wounds?

No team has beaten both the Yankees and Red Sox in the same postseason,

That's because nobody ever could until the Wild-Card in 1995. Since the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry only heated up in the last 4-5 years when both teams were actually good, this comes to no surprise.

a feat that has only been possible in the dozen years of Wild Card postseason play

Oh. You even knew that. And you still wrote the article. This doesn't bode well.

But as the Indians head into Wednesday's scheduled off-day, they can see an opportunity to add that to their place in postseason history.

More like a place in the "media-invented Red Sox and Yankee obsession" history. What the hell? As the winningest team in the AL and the team that is controlling the AL playoffs, don't the Indians deserve respect in their own right, not just because they happened to beat the two teams that garner the most media attention?

With a 3-1 series lead entering Thursday's Game 5, they have three chances to finish off the ultimate twin-killing. But there's little doubt they'd much rather do it in front of their home fans at Jacobs Field.

The only other team to face the Red Sox and Yankees in the same postseason was the 1998 version of this Cleveland club,

Oh. So, Jason, you recognize that this "postseason history" the Indians are creating is actually something that you are "adding undue importance to because writing a story about the Red Sox and Yankees will add more readers/generate more interest than a story just about the Indians".

an 89-win AL Central champion that dispatched the 92-win Red Sox in the Division Series by winning back-to-back one-run games at Fenway Park. The Indians had a 2-1 series lead on New York in what had the makings of an ALCS upset before the 114-win Bronx Bombers won three straight, including two in Cleveland.

Number of wins equates with relative dominance of teams. I see. That '98 team sure was full of True Yankees.

These Indians aren't upset-minded, having tied for baseball's best record with 96 victories in the regular season.

So, this season, it would've been an upset for the 94-win Yankees to beat the Indians.

If that weren't enough, with a 3-1 series advantage, they've established themselves as the team to beat heading into two games for their workhorse starters. They only need one win.

I'm glad you reminded us that you only need four wins in the ALCS, Jason.

"I'm excited that we've taken it this far," manager Eric Wedge said. "But we still have a lot of work to do."

I'm glad you included this quotation, Jason.

And if any team knows about overcoming series deficits, it's the Red Sox. If anything, they're a win ahead of where they stood the last time they reached the brink of the elimination in the ALCS.

Though it certainly was an exciting baseball moment, I'm getting tired of the massive popularity that resulted from the Red Sox' AMAZING 2003 PLAYOFF RUN!

More than a half-dozen players remain from the 2004 team that made history by overcoming a 3-0 series deficit to beat the Yankees and go on to the World Series. Mike Lowell and Josh Beckett weren't with them then, but they were on the 2003 Marlins squad that overcame a 3-1 NLCS deficit by winning three straight over the Cubs.

Playoff experience means nothing. See: Rockies, Colorado. I'm sure Theo Epstein is happy to have this guy and his career 88 OPS+ on the 2007 postseason roster because he sat the bench on the 2003 postseason roster. Note to Jason Beck: just because Mike Lowell and Josh Beckett's team happened to win three games in a row four years ago gives them NO ADVANTAGE IN THIS POSTSEASON!

"I think what [the experience] does," Lowell said, "is you realize it can be done. It's not something that's impossible.

I, dan-bob, did not play in the 2003 ALCS. Kevin Youkilis did not play in the 2003 ALCS. Is Mike Lowell implying that Kevin and I don't "realize it can be done"? I think he is! Mike Lowell realizes it can be done because Mike Lowell was on the team that did it.

"There's only one must-win game, and that's the one two days from now. That's the only one we've got right now on our agenda, and we have to look at it that way."

I'm glad you included that quotation, Jason.

Considering how much the Indians, who'll start co-ace C.C. Sabathia, would rather end this here than go back to Fenway Park and the atmosphere that awaits them, they're undoubtedly thinking one game at a time, too.

Here's a writing tip: the subject and verb in your sentence shouldn't be the 31st and 32nd words. MLB.com has a staff of awful writers.

They don't have to think about the math, but it's in their favor. Since 1985, when the League Championship Series expanded to a best-of-seven format, 10 of the previous 13 teams to hold 3-1 leads in the ALCS have gone on to win the series. Eight of them finished it off in Game 5. Eleven other teams held 3-1 leads in the NLCS, and nine went on to win the series, though five of them lost Game 5.

It's an example of how much momentum means to the team in front, but it also shows how much it can change with one win from the team on the brink.

No, it doesn't. It shows overwhelmingly that a 3-1 lead is nearly insurmountable, even if the losing team does CHANGE THE MOMENTUM with one GRITTY WIN.

That's why both teams have to take it one game at a time.

Jason, whenever this line appears in one of your columns, it should appear in quotes. This is an acceptable line to print when uttered by a player or manager, who is paid to play or manage the game. This is not an acceptable line to print when you are being paid to comment on the game, because it's stupid and offers no insight.

Only three teams -- the 2000 Yankees, 1997 Indians and 1992 Blue Jays -- lost Game 5 with a 3-1 ALCS lead and went on to win Game 6. Three others went on to lose the series.

Jason, you forgot your conclusion! You started talking about the POSTSEASON HISTORY that the Indians were about to create, and ended up talking about the 1992 Blue Jays. You forgot to finish your article! You forgot to actually talk about the Indians' team! You suck!
___________________________________________________________________

After I read this article, I said to myself: shit, I just wasted a few minutes of my life. Now that I spent the last twenty minutes writing this, I say to myself: shit, I just wasted that twenty minutes. Still, I feel I've done my part to indicate my growing distaste at the two growing trends in sports that we at FireJayMariotti hate most:

1. National media's obsession with sensational stories and large-market myopia
and
2. shitty writing and analysis.

This article had both. I do feel a little better now!